THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
LOWER PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, FROM CANADA'S
HIGHEST COURT,COMPARED WITH OTHER COUNTRIES AND
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES, ARE ALSO A STANDARD OF
PROCEDURE, FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA..
THAT ONLY TEN TO TWELVE PERCENT OF CASES ARE HEARD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT EACH YEAR.
THAT IT TAKES THIRTY DAYS, ALSO, FOR UNREPRESENTED APPLICANTS, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, TO HAVE THEIR APPLICATIONS, FILED WITH THE COURT.
It also has the following: A Lower standard of protection for the individual rights and freedom of individuals.
Discriminatory practices and unfair treatment against self represented
litigants, where most of the human rights violations, are also visible,
concerning those cases.
Unknowlegable, or disrespectful staff, who gives out inaccurate
information, about the law to the public, sometimes deliberately.
Unequal treatment, of lawyers and self represented applicants.
An unrepentant attitude about its policies and procedures.
I have made some inquiries, to the Supreme Court of Canada and was shocked at the answers, that I have received, from the "registrar officers", of Canada's highest court, regarding not only my application, that is also currently before that court, but also some other general questions, about the operations, of the court as well. And particularly those questions, around the self represented litigants, before the Supreme Court of Canada. Which is also important information to know, because we are also talking, about the legal protection, of the individual rights and freedom of those persons.
It is information, that I was also prepared, to share with the rest of the public and indeed the entire world, because it also shows the level of human rights standards in Canada, compared with other modern, or democratic countries. The following information, is also what I was given, recently, by the administrative staff, of the Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps it was also intended for me only, but they did not say so, directly. However, at some point in the conversation, they also realised, that I was not, one of those "uneducated" litigants and began to change their positions. I also wanted some specific answers, to my questions, about the procedures, of the Supreme Court of Canada, from their perspective, in order to share this information, with the public and I was going to keep on digging, for the answers, until I get it. Even if it wasn't also, what I had expected to hear, from the court's administrative staff.
The information that I have received from that court included the following: That the Supreme Court of Canada, takes 30 days to review the application, of unrepresented applicants, before the Supreme Court of Canada and that after that time, the applicants are contacted, by mail, if their "application is in order". It is then given to the legal team, after that, to be further reviewed and that this is the same procedure, whether the application is urgent or not. I was told that this was the procedure, of the court, because self represented litigants are "uneducated" in the law and it takes time, to also review those applications, by the "registrar officers" of the Supreme Court. This is an unfair treatment, on the face of it, because often when people file an application, for leave to appeal, or regarding their appeal, it is also because they have a judgement, against them, from the lower court, such as the court of appeal, that is unfair and to further face this kind of discrimination, for an undue delay, of their appeal, from the highest court, is also another attack on their rights. However, in this case, I was later contacted, by a staff, of the Supreme Court of Canada, named Micheline Alam, who at first advised me, regarding my application, before the supreme court, that, I should try to get my motion heard before the lower court, if it is of an urgent nature.
When I also advised her, on what she should have already known, that my matter before the lower court, which is the court of appeal, was also finished, and that I also expected, to proceed in the Supreme court of Canada, in the manner, in which I am also allowed to do, under the law, of that country, she also recounted her statements and said, that, of course I could file my motion, with the supreme court of Canada. I also made it clear to her that it was an urgent motion and needed to be heard "before the thirty days". She then responded, that, she would also forward, my notice of application for leave to appeal and my motion, to the Director, and that someone would get back to me soon, regarding that matter.
Why would the Supreme Court of Canada do that? Would the same action be done to a lawyer, who has requested an urgent motion, to be heard before that court? The answer is not. So then why should the court, also regard, unrepresented litigants, in that manner? Is this fair and equal treatment under the law? Of course not. I also planned to have a lawyer for this appeal, before that court, simply because I don't want to endure any more bull s--t, from that court, or from any other judiciary bodies, in Canada. I have lost my respect for the courts, from what I have also witnessed, personally.
I usually do not like to discuss, a case, that is also currently, before the court, since it is also one of the rules not to do so, if you're also a party to the proceeding and I certainly do not want to be penalized, as far as my appeal goes, and have it go in a direction, that I also do not want it to go. However, in this case, I believe that it is also in the public best interest, to discuss some of the details, of the proceedings, before that court. Since it would also benefit me, to do so, as well. After all, as a journalist, it is my public duty, to also disclosed this information and especially since there is also, no public ban, in regards to it. I've also in the past, asked for others, to be penalized, for violating this rule, concerning the case, so I'm kind of putting myself, in the same position, as well. But it is also necessary, in this case, in order to protect my interest and the interest of the public. When I say my interest, in the matter, I also mean, specifically, against the corrupt practices, of the court. And I mean all of them. From the Supreme Court of Canada, downwards. I have seen corruption, in all of them so far.
I am going to take the position, also, that the Supreme Court of Canada, is evidently, predisposed to corruption, as well as the lower courts, as far as its procedures, based on the information, that is also available, on that and it is also based, on what I have seen so far. That there should be a review, of some of its policies, that are also, openly openly discriminatory, in nature, against some individuals, before that court. In fact, those very same practices, should also be compared, based on the practices, of that court, with other countries, as well and as far as the international standards, for human rights violations. Only then, will there be, any kind of fair, or equal treatment, under the law and for all persons, who has appeared before Canada's highest court and also its lower courts, who has also tried to make their cases, before those courts. As Canada's highest court, it should also set the example, for the other courts to follow, but this also remains to be seen, from the Supreme Court of Canada. It has also gained international recognition, but that should hardly be the case, when only about ten percent, of all cases, are also heard before that court.